Interesting indeed.
First, your observation about my leap between the acknowledgement of multiple variants within the extant manuscripts and my claim that the texts are reliable fails to recognize the arguments and information I included in between. I didn't just make a leap. I talked about the process of textual criticism as applied to multiple manuscripts, multiple generations of manuscripts, spread out over a wide geographic area. It is possible to determine the content of the originals with reasonable certainty. A scholar doesn't have to have any faith whatsover to reach this conclusion.
Most of our earliest manuscripts are dated between 200-300AD. We do have fragments that are earlier which serve to support 1) the first century dating of originals and, 2) the accuracy of the early manuscripts where comparison is possible.
This means that events that took place between 36-39 AD (Jesus was likely born in 6 BC), were written about up to and before 60 years from their occurance and we have multiple manuscripts dating from within 100-200 years from that point. From the standpoint of historical investigation, this represents an overwhelmingly strong body of evidence to look at. Note the following comparison between the New Testament and other works of antiquity of historical and literary value.
http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Documents-of-Antiquity.png
You made the point that we are discussing writings that are presented as God's word, and thus they require a higher standard of evidence. Well, a higher level of evidence is in fact present. But let's not confuse what stage of argument we are currently at. I am arguing that the gospels are reliable as history. That they give us a reasonably accurate view into the events they describe. This is a historical discussion, not a theological discussion. Theology comes a bit later. N.T. Wright says "The gospels appeal to history, so to history we must go." The gospels describe events in history. This is either a reliable history or not. But the method of determination is standard historical process, for we have no other. And from this standpoint, we have more and better evidence for the New Testament than for any other ancient work.
You also raised the issue that there are discrepancies in the gospels. This is worth discussing, but also a leap ahead of where we are in the discussion. We are talking about manuscripts. Do the gospels we now have match what was originally written. Once this is established, we will move on to the internal evidence regarding consistency and other issues. We will then examine external evidence. This is simply standard approach to evaluating any ancient document from a historical perspective. Talking about alleged inconsistencies in the New King James Version between Luke and John is essential, but if inserted during the point we are discussing variants between one extant manuscript of Luke and another, we will confuse the discrepancies we're discussing with each other. Besides, the discrepancies (if any) between Luke and John only matter once we're reasonably sure that the Luke and John we are reading match the Luke and John that were written. There's a logical process for us to follow.
Next, you claim that the variants that exist are more significant than I have indicated. I disagree factually. I would love to see you show one example of a variant within extant manuscripts that 1) isn't easily explained as a scribal error and corrected by comparing it to other manuscripts recovered from another geographic area and 2) has any bearing upon the historical content of the gospels.
This visual simply serves to further explain how the copying and geographic distribution process impacted things.
http://alansmithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Geographic-Distribution.png
I really want to establish the issue of the reliability of the texts in providing us access to original content. No leap of faith is required here. This is a matter of fact and history. An unreasonable and strongly held assumption of falsehood going in is required to filter out this reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment